TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (9) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Central Excise Tariff on the ground that these being the products of printing industry were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 55 of 1975 dated 1-3-1975 (as amended by Notification No. 114 of 1975 dated 30-4-1975 and Notification No. 122 of 1975 dated 5-5-1975). In support of their contentions they cited Government of India's Order-in-Revision No. 2057 of 1977 passed in the case of a Revision Application of M/s. Allibhoy Sharafully & Co., Bombay - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 145). After considering the submissions of the assessee the Assistant Collector, however, approved the classification list No. 29 of 1978 after disallowing the benefit of Notification No. 55 of 1975, dated 1-3-1975 (as amended). In their appeal, the assessee heavily relied upon the decision of the Government of India in the case of M/s. Allibhoy Sharafully & Co., Bombay and the Appellate Collector allowed the assessee's appeal by holding that printed cartons are more appropriately to be treated as products of the printing industry and therefore, should be eligible for the benefit of exemption contained in Notification No. 55 of 1975 (as amended). 3. On a perusal of the records of the case, the Government....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v) The test applied by the Government of India in its decision in the case of M/s. Vijay Flexibles Ltd. Bombay [1980 (E.L.T.) J (646)], viz. (a) the function or use of the printed cartons; (b) the printing was not the culminating process for the manufacture of the goods in question and therefore, (c) the exemption notification must be construed strictly, were not correct. (v) The deciding factor is as to how the goods are known in trade parlance and, according to the petitioner's Advocate, the cartons are regarded by the printing industry as a major product and these should, therefore, be eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 55 of 1975, dated 1-3-1975, (as amended). 6. As regards point (i), the assessee have heavily relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ACC, Ltd. v. Union of India (1981 ECR 66 D)=1981 (8) E.L.T. 421. Government consider that the assessee's case could be distinguished from this case. In the case of ACC, Ltd., the issue was whether the demand for duty made by the Superintendent of Central Excise was sustainable or not, and the Government had issued a notice for review under Section 36(2) of the Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve the remedy of enunciating its views in other cases where its hands are not so tied and matters can be pursued therein. If, eventually, the High Court or the Supreme Court approves its views, that would enable the Department to apply these views even in cases where a different view was taken earlier by it." In the said judgment, the High Court has also held that "However, while it has been repeatedly held that the principle of res judicata or estoppel as such will not apply in tax matters and that the view taken by the assessing or appellate or revisional authority or even the High Court in respect of any one assessment period, will not be final and conclusive for subsequent periods, it was observed even in Sneath's case (1932-17 Tax Cases 149) that such earlier decision will be a cogent factor in the determination of the same point in the following year. In other words, these decisions import into the rule of non-applicability of the principles of res judicata and estoppel a limitation that while the earlier decision is not conclusive or immutable it can be ignored or brushed aside or departed from only for good and cogent reasons." The Government respectfully agree with the afo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vernment consider that the two more or less go together. The issue to be decided here is whether printed cartons are the products of printing industry or they are the products of packaging industry as distinguished from printing industry. For deciding the parameters of the exemption Notification No. 55 of 1975, it therefore becomes necessary in the first instance, to know as to what would constitute a printing industry and what would constitute a packaging industry. It is a matter of common knowledge that for purposes of licensing, the two are registered separately with the D.G.T.D. Government observe that the assessee has been issued with an industrial licence under the First Schedule to Industries (Development & Regulation) Act for "Specially Lined Paper Board Containers (Cekatainers)." It is not the assessee's case that every printing press, which is undoubtedly and inexorably associated with the processes of printing, could not be expected to produce a printed carton, which would certainly be the case if by mere printing such products are to be called products of printing industry. Even on a common understanding of the scope of the term "printing industry" one would associate p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....975. Packaging is certainly different from printing. It is an innovation that reduces packaging costs, enhances keeping quality, facilitates product use, increases control of critical ingredients, effects a more complete and direct communication of marketing claims, allows the development of totally new products, makes possible longer-in-use storage, and contributes directly to public health and welfare. The Machinery required for making packages may comprise not only a printing press but also separate and additional machines for cutting, slitting and creasing the board, for converting it into a carton. As observed by the Government in the case of Vijay Flexibles Ltd., only those products where printing virtually constitutes a culminating process of manufacture for obtaining the end product, could be called a product exclusively of the printing industry. The exemption as provided in Notification No. 55 of 1975 (as amended) could be made available only to products exclusively of printing industry and not to products which have undergone printing at some stage of its manufacture. In this connection, the Government consider it pertinent to observe that trade understands the printed me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be regarded as porcelainware merely because one of its main components was made of porcelain. 10. In view of the above, Government hold that the printed cartons manufactured by the assessee are classifiable as products of packaging industry as distinguished from products of printing industry and as such not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 55 of 1975, dated 1-3-1975 (as amended). Government accordingly set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and restore the order-in-original No. V(68)30/1/76Form-l/11393, dated 30-8-1978 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central, Excise Faridabad. EDITOR'S COMMENTS In view of the fundamental "right of equality before law" as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, a decision rendered by the highest quasi-judicial authority, however wrong it may be, cannot be rectified by that authority in subsequent cases, otherwise it will result in discrimination among the manufacturers. In this regard, Justice P.B. Mukherjee of Calcutta High Court in the case of Mercantile Express Co. v. Assistant Collector of Customs - 1978(2) ELT (J 552) has rightly held that the Excise and Customs authorities have no right to rectify....